Izzy

Here's a better solution.

I can save at least...

Hey guys! I've missed this place. I was heartbroken when the forums got destroyed, but I'm glad to see it's survived. What I miss?

Related to my previous thread. Imagine two points on the surface of a sphere, and you want to move Point A to Point B. Due to the nature of the problem, a single rotation suffices, as long as the new location of Point A is where Point B previously was. That is, the final orientation of the sphere is irrelevant, as long as that condition is met. How do I find the rotation axis in order to use Rodrigues' Rotation Formula?

Wow, I can't believe I overlooked that. Thanks guys.

Since I don't actually know x, this response has been the most useful. Thanks Prof. Can you explain it, though?

Well, this isn't really homework. What I'm actually trying to do is find h, and I have a way to do that if I know theta. So, I'd appreciate help with finding theta, but if you can do h, that works too. (This is actually a really simplified version of the problem. In reality, the circle is a sphere, and h is the distance of a line that intersects perpendicularly with the center of a small circle within the sphere, whose center lines up with a point on the surface of the sphere. Didn't know how to draw that, so help me find h or theta pl0x?) All I've managed to establish is that the angle to the left of theta will be 135, regardless of h.

The freezing point of an aqueous barium nitrate solution is -2.65 °C. Determine the apparent molal concentration of barium nitrate. (Kf of water = -1.86 °C/molal) My approach: ∆T = i*Kf*m m = ∆T/(i*Kf) m = ? i = 3 Kf = -1.86 °C/molal (right? Why am I using the Kf of water instead of barium nitrate?) ∆T = ... My problem lies with determining the change in temperature. Halp? *edit* Pfft, never mind. >_> 2.65.

It's a team strategy. Our members are all so cool that we have to look unexcited so we won't be picked off as a threat. Cover blown. Oops.

Confirmed, I guess.

Hah, I lol at UtF and I continually agreeing on things for completely different reasons.

Eugh. I was explaining why Rick Scott was a terrible governor to GM last night. This was one of my (many) reasons. He thinks he owes it to the tax payers to make sure their money isn't funding drug habits, but doesn't realize that he's wasting more of their money, because he has to reimburse every negative test. ... Idiot. He sold Soltantic, though, to implement this law, so maybe healthcare will improve. (I share a state with UtF?)

Soz, I get trolly during the summers.

Um, Jesus didn't die, bro. God isn't dead. He pretended to die for us, I'll take that, but don't you dare say my GOD is dead. (Punk isn't dead, either.)

Eh, I would think that only three kinds of people would approve of the drug war. Drug dealers, understandably, who enjoy profiting from the distribution of illicit substances. Dumb people, who are pretentiously self-righteous in their ways and want a clean country, as God undoubtedly intended. And, of course, the politicians who want into office and play the card from the former category. Hopefully, this site doesn't attract any of those types. Lol at your stream of smilies. "Realization! Am I sure? Yes, and that's shocking, Izzy! Wait.. Kidding. I WUB dwugs. Hahahaha (high). Sad come down. So, avoid it, redosing, entering the state. VERY NAUGHTY, SIR.

Druggggggggsss haha

That is only taxation as viewed by the right. To the rest of us, it is the debt payed to the state to live in a society with a socialized form of the necessities of life. In an (read: my) ideal society, taxes will pay for more than that sheer minimum. Neither view defines taxation, which is simply the compulsory contribution of revenue to the state. Just because something is compulsory does not mean it is lacks consent. From some people, perhaps, but reread your own claim before you call dawh clueless. See above. I will, eventually, willingly pay taxes. In return, I feel entitled to what constitutes as an enjoyable, or at minimum, livable life. Healthcare, to me, is a minimum. This debate is pointless because we have fundamentally different ideals. You want what is optimal for you, while the rest of us will rather sacrifice arbitrary currency in return for essential services that we feel should be available to even those that can't afford them. No one is "right" because it's not "wrong" to love yourself more than society or vice versa. The problem is that you need to realize that. Dawh and gvg are not spewing nonsense because you don't agree with them. To be fair, aside from when your logic is completely inconsistent, neither are you. I understand, that to you, taxes feel like they are violating your human rights, and are a form of non-violent violence (haha, and oxymoron that makes perfect sense). To the rest of us, taxes are the binding agent of our civilization. Now, there is a point for debate in here, and that is the practicality of your society. That's what I was originally addressing with my "What will you do?" and Dawh's series of "What If's". It's important that your society will even function before you wish to secede from ours. /post

Odd - Caption / Even - Drawing 1. TheCube 2. momo 3. Aura 4. peace is out 5. MoMa 6. andromeda 7. Q-Cumber 8. plainglazed 9. Izzy 10. 11. 12.

For my purposes, I wish Obama's bill would have been signed into congress without the adulteration of the right. Since *that* didn't happen, it's all s'hitty now and serves no purpose.

Then the solution to different belief systems is having areas for the middle ground. Even now, people can't live wherever they want. They live where they can afford and where their birth or family relations allow them to live. Before I thought of this system, I wanted some completely globalized planet where everyone followed the same basic standard of laws, so that people could choose to live where they wanted to purely by location. I realized that's not possible, because we can't convince nations to give up their theocracies, their military policies, or their judicial systems. As the world stands, I would not feel comfortable living in Israel because as nice of a country as it is, I am not religious. Middle ground is okay for middle ground's sake. If I want a veggie pizza and you want a meat lovers, we can settle on cheese. Neither of us will be happy with it, but the pizza meets its purpose. I don't think a government should exist for the sake of just meeting its purpose. It should try to make people happy. I'm not saying everyone has to live where they feel politically comfortable. That would defeat the purpose of letting people be in control of their lives. I just think the US should be set up so it is at least an option. In a way, it's happening because of state laws. So really, what I propose isn't all that different than the natural course the country is bound to take, and has taken for some time now. Face it, the north is very left, and the south... is not. California isn't far from legalizing marijuana (the first victory in the drug war, woot), while Florida has the third most strict cannabis laws in the country. Ann Arbor has its fine, and citizens of Oklahoma can be given up to life in prison. There are three solutions to drug use in the south. 1. Do it discreetly. 2. Get your local drug laws changed. 3. Move somewhere where drugs are a less serious offense. 1 is what most people end up doing, and those caught (one of my favorite people got arrested last Friday =/) serve as a warning to others. 2 is difficult. I think all drugs should be legal, but I understand that some people are fundamentally different in this view. They want to live in what they think is a safe haven away from all the "scary" drug users. I get that. Yay media demonization, but if they want to live in an area free of drugs, they should also have that right, just like an atheist should have the right to go to a secular school and the religious can have their religious ones. Nbd. People are also fundamentally different when it comes to politics, because there is no right or wrong (at least when it comes to economics). Conservatives are perfectly justified in wanting to keep their money for themselves. Liberals are perfectly justified in thinking that money should go to build a stronger country. As I've said before, our current political system sucks because it makes you choose, for the most part, between yourself and society. (Now, what conservatives often overlook is that by building a stronger society, they're doing themselves a favor, but meh, whatever). And, again, the middle ground is okay, but it is not, in any form, ideal. I'd be sad to see a lot of friends leave, but I'd also make new friends. I can see an argument coming in here that relates how living in a homogenous environment enforces the views of that environment, and that not necessarily being a good thing. I think, given the internet, people are exposed to enough other people for that to be less of a concern. Though, if people are happy with their local government, it shouldn't matter, because they'll already have what they want so there will be no need to dispute with different people. And again, they wouldn't have to live in different countries. I envision a lot of moderate states. @Mo: Don't be stupid, I'm talking about current Germany. Just because people share the same basic system of thought doesn't make them completely like one another. Unreality and I agree on most things, but when it comes to ways of thinking and problem solving, we're very different. Same thing with you and I. People of shared political leanings generally have the same goal. Let's take healthcare, for instance. Now, everyone has the same goal: people should have good heathcare. Liberals and conservatives have completely different subgoals. Liberals want socialized healthcare, and conservatives want privatized healthcare. These methods aren't means to accomplishing the first goal, but rather more specific versions of that goal. If a nation thinks it has the same goal, but really doesn't, we get the current form of Obamacare. That's a joke. Separate the people that want socialized and privatized healthcare, and the actual goal of improving healthcare can be tackled. The former will make sure it's provided to everyone, and can then work on the abilities of the doctors and comfort of hospitals and the latter can just put a s'hiton of their money into paying for services, because this is America and money can buy anything. () Now, the way these reforms go through will have a lot of approaches from both sides, but again, the goals are fundamentally different. The middle ground.. is... not very... clear.

Your pizza analogy fails because you overlook the most simple solution: making your order more clear. Just tell the company your ordering from to put mushroom on this fifth, with some pepperoni on these two fifths but only peppers on one of them. Have your veggie lovers, and so forth. The bigger your population is, the easier it so to order pizzas. In a group of 20, you can easily order a few pepperoni and cheese pizzas and feed them to the people that would be happy with just that, and everyone else can split pizzas up. Papa Johns and Pizza Hut are more than happy to do it. I'd probably just ask my parents to move to Boston, and do my best to pay for their relocation. The north has better health facilities anyway. If none of this is an option, and I HAVE to move to Texas to care for my parents, then I'd do it, and I'd happily comply to the locals laws as much as I disagree with them because I'm there to help my parents. If I have kids in this scenario, then I'd be less willing to move, and maybe hire nurses for my parents instead and visit regularly. If you've read Huxley's "Island", then I'd like to point out that I'd prefer it if people everywhere just behaved like the natives. It's so simple. Since we are different, well, *shrug* Imagine, instead, this scenario: We have Conservative America, Socialist Germany, Communist China, Jewish Israel, and *meh, other places*. I will be more happy in socialist German than any of the other places. My Jewish friends will be fine in Israel. Die hard righties will like America, and the communists will favor China. To an extent, political dispersion through geography already exists. (And yeah, sometimes foreign relations suck, but that can be fixed). Should I have to remain in my arbitrary place of birth, even if I don't agree with what's going on there? Should an atheist born in Israel have to stay there? Nah. Secessions are a little different, but once they're said and done, we'll have little countries that are nearly completely politically unified. Imagine taking all the skinheads, anarchists, and teabaggers (er, partiers) out of Germany and leaving just the socialists. It becomes stronger. Melting pots suck. Diversity sucks. By all means, accept other cultures, but don't be forced to embrace them and live by their rules just because of the majority vote. So much more will get accomplished if we just rewrite the world map. I'm sure your friend was fine with Ann Arbor after living there for a while? Change seems scary, but people get used to it. When we moved from Orlando to Oviedo, I was completely distraught. Going from the suburbs to the suburbs of the suburbs (what I, as an Orlando kid, considered the country ) was unthinkable. *shrug* I got used to it. At first, it sucked being a teenager here because there's *nothing to do*, but that was mostly due to immobility. I got my license and a car, and.. then it wasn't so bad anymore. Moral: people learn to like where they live. Anyway. I don't know how coherent that is. It's summeraksjfakjdfakdjf.

Yet forced compliance is okay? If so, why? People, as dawh pointed out, are inherently different. If they don't agree on something, I don't see why only giving one person their way is the solution. Maybe a series of secessions doesn't solve this, but we do need a method of geographically grouping people with like desires together so we can even attempt universal happiness. Homogeneity isn't a bad thing if it eliminate internal disputes. I think we're almost at the point when most countries can start minding their own business... (Of course, if everyone wants to live where they live, there will be no reason to start wars in the name of "freedom", or oil. )

Dawh, I want to make a few points. America is enormous. Florida alone is about the size of Germany. Even if all fifty states decide to claim their independence, our shared culture will still hold us together. Nothing would stop the states from working together. I don't think we'll spiral into this scary failing anarchist society you envision. If anything, we'll resemble Western Europe, + some diversity and freedoms, - some left leaning majority. You mention slavery. Is being forced to comply with rules of a government you don't agree with not a form of slavery? Taxation, for those that don't want to tax, is slavery to the state. Their labor is going to other people. At least, that's how I imagine the right sees it. The left sees it more like the necessary foundation for their country. My only goal in life is it be happy and to let others be happy. If you want a strong, central government, then by all means have one, but I think we should play nice and not make people that don't want to join in "play". It's kind of like charades. If someone has a bad attitude about it, it's going to suck. Rather than compromise and play a game no one is into, break into groups and play what you want. This logic is so elementary that we literally began employing it at recess in kindergarten. We were still friends with everyone back then, and I seriously think it can be applied to politics.